State v. Gabriel Santiago
2014 R.I. LEXIS 7
| R.I. | 2014Background
- Defense challenges Rule 16 discovery impact on trial testimony; case involves alleged second-degree child molestation by Gabriel Santiago; CAC interview of the child was partially used and then refreshed with transcript; trial court allowed use of transcript to refresh recollection; state updated discovery indicating recollection inconsistency on eve of testimony; defendant objected to eliciting testimony contrary to amended discovery responses; court affirmed admission of refreshed-memory testimony.
- Victim Doreen testified that touching felt hard, conflicting with prior CAC interview where it felt soft; transcript was used to refresh memory leading to a new in-court recounting.
- The state disclosed that Doreen’s recollection had changed and that the CAC transcript did not refresh memory; defense was aware of prior ruling permitting refreshment from the CAC interview.
- The trial court permitted the refreshed-memory question and the testimony following the transcript reading; the Rhode Island Supreme Court reviews for Rule 16 discovery compliance with narrow clear-error standard.
- Court concludes there was no Rule 16 violation given updated disclosures and proper use of refreshment evidence; memory-refresh rule governs, not the prior memorandum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether refreshing Doreen’s recollection using the CAC transcript violated Rule 16 disclosure | Santiago argues state violated discovery by using transcript | Santiago argues improper reliance on refreshed memory | No violation; proper refreshment permitted |
| Whether the state’s updated discovery conduct on eve of trial was proper | State updated discovery to reflect inconsistencies | Defense already aware of rulings allowing refreshment | Proper under Rule 16(h) and related authorities |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Briggs, 886 A.2d 735 (R.I. 2005) (standard for testing Rule 16 discovery violations; appellate deference to trial court’s harm assessment)
- State v. Ricci, 639 A.2d 64 (R.I. 1994) (continuing duty to disclose; memory refreshed by testimony governs)
- State v. Pona, 810 A.2d 245 (R.I. 2002) (no discovery violation when testimony expands beyond disclosure)
- State v. Werner, 831 A.2d 183 (R.I. 2003) (no discovery violation when disclosed material reasonably anticipated)
- State v. Marmolejos, 990 A.2d 848 (R.I. 2010) (deference to trial court on discovery issues; not abuse of discretion)
- State v. Diefenderfer, 970 A.2d 12 (R.I. 2009) (trial court’s discovery rulings reviewed for clear abuse of discretion)
- State v. Farley, 962 A.2d 748 (R.I. 2009) (discovery rulings and preservation of rights under Rule 16)
- State v. Stravato, 935 A.2d 948 (R.I. 2007) (harm mitigation and evidentiary rulings under discovery)